The Supreme Court of Canada issued a bill & # 39; life insurance & # 39; $ 250,000 to a woman after her former husband as beneficiary eliminate it, even if it continued to pay for it.
The Supreme Court of Canada of package & # 39; life insurance & # 39; $ 250,000 to a woman that the ex-husband never qaletha tneħħietha as the beneficiary, although it continued to pay premiums for more than ten years after their divorce.
When Michelle Moore separated from her husband Larry in 1999, they made what is known in law as "kitchen table deal", unwritten agreement that it would continue to pay annual premiums on insurance of his life, the beneficiary.
So for 12 years, Michelle has paid more than $ 500 a year, and was thinking that it would receive $ 250,000 in the case of & # 39; & # 39 deaths; Larry, for its own benefit and their three children.
But there was a hitch. After separation, Larry went to his new wife Risa Sweet, immediately designating as the beneficiary of his life insurance, without saying to Michelle.
When Larry died in 2013, hence, Michelle was shocked to learn of the insurance company that was paying premiums to policy, from her divorce, was officially in & # 39; name the new wife of former -raġel her.
This led to a legal battle between two parties "innocent", as stated by the Supreme Court, which passed all court levels over five years. Michelle Moore won in its initial application, lost on appeal, and now has won in the main court of the country.
The effect is that the money, held in trust, will go with it.
"Risa was enriched, Michelle was denied b & # 39; correspondingly, and both enrichment and rejection occurred in the absence of & # 39; legal grounds", read the Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Suzanne Cote. It was a split decision, with Justice Clément Gascón and Malcolm Rowe disagreed.
Michelle and Larry Moore were married in 1979, and had three children who are now adults. Michelle continues to live in the family home in & # 39; Messinauga. He bought the life insurance in 1985, and Michelle was nominated as the beneficiary, but not with & # 39; irrevocably.
They separated in & # 39; & # December 39, 1999, and agreed with & # 39; informal way that it would continue to pay the premiums and remains & # 39; as the beneficiary.
The agreement & # 39; their separation, signed in 2002, does not mention the oral agreement. But the initial application judge found as a fact that this agreement was a real, legally binding and enforceable. He also found that the policy objective was to provide Michelle Moore and to children in the event of the death of & # 39; Larry.
They separated in & # 39; December 1999, the same year Larry met his new wife, Risa Sweet, now 63, in Donwood Institute, Center & # 39; addiction treatment in the neighborhood & # 39; Leaside f & # 39; Toronto later joins & # 39; other facilities in Center & # 39; Addiction and Mental Health.
"It is evident from the materials breakdown of the marriage between Moores related to the struggles of Mr. Moore b & # 39; chronic pain and his questions about alcohol and drug abuse without doubt contributed to what Mrs. Moore refers to as financial irresponsibility and accumulation & # 39; debts are borne both, "according to an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal of & # 39; Ontario. "They clearly gone through a very difficult time. In fact, financial difficulties – including a very substantial debt of Mr. Moore to the Canada Revenue & # 39; & # 39; over $ 70,000 – led lit- both declare bankruptcy in early 2000. "
Around this time, Larry Moore also lost his driver's license and his job, for medical reasons. With time, the payment & # 39; his disability were seized for child support.
He moved to & # 39; Sweet in 2000, and became common law spouse for 13 years, caring for each other physically and financially. He made the switch to the policy of & # 39; assurance of his life in & # 39; September 2000 and added Sweet, by removing to Michelle.
The Supreme Court found that Larry did not change "surreptitiously". In fact, he made by & # 39; broker who was married to & # 39; sister Michelle. But, importantly, he told Michelle made it. It continued to pay annual premiums & # 39; $ 507.50 until Larry died in 2013, without significant assets.
Sweet argued that the policy was rightly it, as stated contract, and Moore was trying to "avoid" rules of & # 39; the statutory scheme & # 39; Ontario to regulate insurance.
"Mr. Moore does not want to ninkwetajt how he would pay the rent or buy my medicines in the unlikely event that died before me," Sweet said in court records. "He wanted to ensure that I was able to live the remaining years in my building where has lived the last 40 years. And he wanted me to live without debt and worry."
Sweet is disabled b & # 39; various chronic diseases and can not take public transit, according to her court file. It continues to beat pay rent and buy food.